Union County School Board proposes new student realignment plan (Wesley Chapel: how much, public school)

[Phocion]

Originally Posted by BubbaHelms

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me who goes where. If Weddington is the closest school to Wesley Chapel, then why not?

UCPS needs to decide where the students need to attend and then add capacity to allow that to happen rather than allowing the placement of capacity to be a political decision dictated by the composition of the school board.

Relevant data (i.e. cafeteria capacity) can't be ignored across the county because it isn't convenient to consider it for some schools.

If this realignment is about allowing students to attend the closest school, why was a map never created of what that would look like? Obviously, such a map wouldn't work but it could be tweaked until it worked. It would have also been useful for planning purposes. Then, UCPS would know where it actually needs to add classrooms or expand core. If this had been done prior to the bond, UCPS might have realized they needed to expand the Weddington Middle and Piedmont Middle cafeterias before adding unnecessary capacity in certain other locations.

I think the idea of going to the closest schools in concept makes sense. But it can't always work. I have posted before, we don't want mega schools, and some areas are more dense, and the school may get filled up with people who live closer, so you may have to go to a school further away.

But this redistricting was never about actually fixing a systemwide problem. This redistricting was about undoing a perceived wrong done to a group of people. If you go back and read a lot of what the CAPS group was saying they were against redistricting and moving kids, well...this is a redistricting and moving kids. What is the difference here? They are in control and doing what they want. It is all about control.

Where is David Sentendery when we need him?

[BubbaHelms]

Originally Posted by Phocion

I think the idea of going to the closest schools in concept makes sense. But it can't always work. I have posted before, we don't want mega schools, and some areas are more dense, and the school may get filled up with people who live closer, so you may have to go to a school further away.

I understand that but given the mismatches between core capacity and classroom capacity at some schools, UCPS has some leeway within the existing schools to adjust capacity to better match the population distribution across the county. However, they don't seem to be exploring those options. Perhaps because taxpayer money has been tied up in some unnecessary classroom additions in the bond? Nor do they seem to be considering the use of mobile classrooms to allow more students to attend a closer school (ideal in situations where enrollment is projected to rapidly decline).

[Phocion]

Originally Posted by BubbaHelms

I understand that but given the mismatches between core capacity and classroom capacity at some schools, UCPS has some leeway within the existing schools to adjust capacity to better match the population distribution across the county. However, they don't seem to be exploring those options. Perhaps because taxpayer money has been tied up in some unnecessary classroom additions in the bond? Nor do they seem to be considering the use of mobile classrooms to allow more students to attend a closer school (ideal in situations where enrollment is projected to rapidly decline).

That is fair. I think it is a balance. I think where UCPS can match it up, they should. But where they can't, they can't, and parents need to understand that. What I don't like is the obvious boundary movement to hit their key constituencies.

[Phocion]

MINUTES
UNION COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION
OPEN SESSION PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER SEPTEMBER 7, 2017
7:00 P.M.

"Mrs. Heintel commented that at this time the Board of Education is not involved with the realignment."

I think we can all agree from reading the emails, that is not true. The chair has inserted herself into the realignment and has directed the consultants.

"Kathy Heintel reported the Policy Committee met on August 31, 2017 and in addition to the policies on this agenda, they discussed partisan elections. She informed the committee talked about the sibling policy which would allow siblings of students to stay in the same clusters."

Here again, this policy directly impacts realignment. Is this being included as a factor that the consultants and the CAC is considering?

[getatag]

Originally Posted by Phocion

MINUTES
UNION COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION
OPEN SESSION PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER SEPTEMBER 7, 2017
7:00 P.M.

"Mrs. Heintel commented that at this time the Board of Education is not involved with the realignment."

I think we can all agree from reading the emails, that is not true. The chair has inserted herself into the realignment and has directed the consultants.

"Kathy Heintel reported the Policy Committee met on August 31, 2017 and in addition to the policies on this agenda, they discussed partisan elections. She informed the committee talked about the sibling policy which would allow siblings of students to stay in the same clusters."

Here again, this policy directly impacts realignment. Is this being included as a factor that the consultants and the CAC is considering?

While I have not listened to the committee discussion regarding a sibling policy, normally policy should not be made for exceptions, keeping a few sibling, that may get separated, together during a reassignment should be done through the appeals process. The appeals process allows each individual case to be taken on it's own merit.

[Phocion]

Originally Posted by getatag

While I have not listened to the committee discussion regarding a sibling policy, normally policy should not be made for exceptions, keeping a few sibling, that may get separated, together during a reassignment should be done through the appeals process. The appeals process allows each individual case to be taken on it's own merit.

And I didn't even say anything about the travesty which is the partisan elections of the BOE. Another example of the NCGA passing bills that just impact a few counties (10). I am glad they are really focusing on the important items up in Raleigh.

Sorry we can get back to realignment now. But honestly it is the same. This BOE supported partisan elections as it is about power and taking care of their allies. This BOE is realigning as it is about power and taking care of their allies. Has nothing to do with students and education. Good old Union County politics run by the Union County GOP!

[getatag]

Truth be known elections for BOE in Union County have been partisan in everything but name for far more years than I can remember.
If you were a voter approaching a UC poll, and didn't know what party BOE hopefuls were representing, I'd bet you'd just crawled out of a cave where you'd been since the end of WWII.

[BubbaHelms]

Originally Posted by Phocion

MINUTES
UNION COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION
OPEN SESSION PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER SEPTEMBER 7, 2017
7:00 P.M.

"Mrs. Heintel commented that at this time the Board of Education is not involved with the realignment."

I think we can all agree from reading the emails, that is not true. The chair has inserted herself into the realignment and has directed the consultants.

So members of the realignment committee were given no public email addresses and the Realignment Committee email address only goes to the BOE consultant, Matt Cropper. Yet, Committee members aren't to use their personal email addresses and no one is supposed to email individual committee members. I guess things are transparent when the committee can't communicate with the public and the public can't communicate with them.

And the BOE "is not involved with the realignment"? Some sure appear to be trying really hard to control the narrative. Meanwhile, the board chair seems to feel free to email whatever committee member she wants.

This is such a joke. "Transparent" my foot!

You copied many but not all of the Committee members on your email. UCPS has not released the private email addresses of the Committee members to protect the privacy of these individuals and to keep this process transparent. If Committee members are using their personal email to discuss realignment with members of the community, they are taking away from the transparency of this process both to the community and to the other Committee members who could benefit from the input that is not being shared. I am sure that you can agree with that. Please refrain from sharing or using the Committee members’ personal and work emails on any future correspondence. The realignment email address (realignment@ucps.k12.nc.us<mailto:realignment@ucp s.k12.nc.us>) is to be used for correspondence with the full Committee in order to preserve a transparent process for all members and the public.


Melissa Merrell - Board Chair
Board of Education - District 4
Piedmont & Porter Ridge Clusters
Office: 704-893-2792
Cell: 704-488-5042

Who does this woman think she is telling people who they are and are not allowed to email?

[getatag]

I certainly understand the premise of having Cropper handle all incoming emails from the public and sharing them with CAC members. Evidently transparency, no matter how well thought out, is an elusive beast.

CAC members names are out there and unless they've lived in an electronic shell for the past 20 years, neighbors and acquaintances will have access to their addresses and phone numbers.

Two steps forward, one step backward. Nothing is perfect.

It may be interesting to go through all the released emails to see what set this off.

[BubbaHelms]

Originally Posted by getatag

I certainly understand the premise of having Cropper handle all incoming emails from the public and sharing them with CAC members. Evidently transparency, no matter how well thought out, is an elusive beast.

CAC members names are out there and unless they've lived in an electronic shell for the past 20 years, neighbors and acquaintances will have access to their addresses and phone numbers.

Two steps forward, one step backward. Nothing is perfect.

It may be interesting to go through all the released emails to see what set this off.

I'll save you the trouble. Certain BOE members took issue with some of the Realignment Committee members being copied on this email.

Board of Education Members:

School capacity should not be a political decision. School capacity should not change from year to year based on personal agendas. The State sets limits and establishes guidelines for good reasons and they should not be overridden at the local level.

I know many of you are being told to stay out of the realignment process, but capacity is not simply a realignment issue. Overcrowding has a multitude of negative effects. Overcrowding has been found to lead to lower test scores, to increase the number of disciplinary incidents, and to increase teacher turnover. The wear and tear caused by overcrowding leads to more rapid deterioration of school facilities. Overcrowding is also a safety issue in emergency situations. The educational outcomes of students should not be impacted by which facility they attend. Additionally, without accurate capacities, taxpayer dollars will continue to be wasted on capacity additions not of appropriate scale or located in areas where population density does not warrant them. Facilities planning simply cannot be done without accurate capacities.

I would like to reiterate my request that the BOE adopt as policy a uniform method of calculating building capacity and that UCPS consider using a method such as the one used by Wake County. I find UCPS’s policy to be inadequate: “Utilization: Capacity shall be based on the number of standard teaching spaces. Schools may operate above capacity through the use of mobile classroom units and/or special purpose classrooms.” https://boe.ucps.k12.nc.us:453/publi...20&action=view In addition to failing to outline a uniform method for determining capacity, this policy totally ignores the capacity of the core areas such as the cafeterias, gyms,and media centers.

We also have BOE members directing Mr. Cropper and the Citizens Advisory Committee to ignore core capacity for the current realignment. This directive will create many issues in our schools if not rescinded. Students at some schools shouldn’t have to go without using the restroom all day because the restrooms are too crowded between classes. Students shouldn’t have to carry all their books and belongings all day because the hallways are too crowded for them to get to their lockers between classes. Students shouldn’t have to eat lunch at 10:20 am because their school has to run six lunch shifts. Students shouldn't have to squat at cafeteria tables to eat lunch because there aren’t enough seats, particularly when seating has been removed to increase standing capacity so the Fire Marshall will increase the cafeteria occupancy limit ( 5 sf per person standing area v.. 15 sf per person for table and chair seating area) .

I was especially dismayed to hear the BOE plans to raise cafeteria capacities again at some schools by multiplying the Fire Marshall’s occupancy limit by the number of lunches each school is currently running. This is misguided for a number of reasons:

-The Fire Marshall’s occupancy limit is a safety LIMIT for emergency egress; it does not indicate how many students can be served by or comfortably dine in the cafeteria. Cafeteria capacity should be the lower of the DPI three-lunch method calculation based on seating area and the Fire Marshall's occupancy limit times three.

-The Fire Marshall’s occupancy limit is based on the number of seats and tables, the standing room area, and the number of emergency exits not the square footage of the dining area. So, two cafeterias with the same seating area could have different occupancy limits based on the number of exits. As an example, per the Fire Marshall, Parkwood Middle and Piedmont Middle have the same seating area but Parkwood’s cafeteria has an exterior door while Piedmont’s does not. Parkwood’s cafeteria occupancy is limited by square footage while Piedmont’s is limited by the number of exits.

-Different school facilities may be required to meet different building and safety code requirements based on which Code was in effect during their year of construction. An example of this would be that UCPS is allowed to have two classrooms with a combined total of 73 students and two teachers funnel out one shared exterior exit door for the classrooms exiting along the exterior walls of the original buildings at Sun Valley, Parkwood, and Piedmont middle schools when this would be an egregious violation of current Fire Code which would only allow a combined total of 48 students and two teachers in those classrooms if the schools were built today.

-Surveying the principals about the number of lunch shifts they run and utilizing that number of lunches to calculate cafeteria capacities would not be a uniform method and could result in capacities changing from year to year. The more crowded a school is the higher its stated cafeteria capacity would be.

This is not the first time cafeteria capacities have been raised. The BOE already arbitrarily raised the cafeteria capacities a year ago when they decided to go to a four-lunch standard for all schools. That decision does not follow North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Facility Guidelines:

“The dining area size is determined by dividing the number of participating children by the number of seatings multiplied by the square footage per pupil (size = ADM ÷ number of seatings x sq. ft. per pupil). A very small school may have one seating. A very large school may have four seatings. For the typical school, three seatings make the best use of cafeteria facilities. A program of continuous serving and seating (equals the space required for about 2.5 seatings) requires some additional planning and may be most efficient.” North Carolina School Facilities Guidelines. p.35 http://www.schoolclearinghouse.org/p...er%202014).pdf

DPI clearly recommends schools be designed for three lunches. As a result, most of UCPS's schools were sized to match cafeterias designed based on the three-lunch recommendation. Gyms, media centers, hallways, restrooms, etc. were designed to accommodate roughly the same number of students as could be served by the cafeteria in most cases. If the cafeteria accommodated 900, the rest of the school was sized to accommodate a similar number of students. Arbitrarily raising cafeteria capacity to 1,200 using the four-lunch method does not raise the capacity of the gyms, media centers, hallways, restrooms, etc. to accommodate that arbitrary increase of 300 students and just results in overcrowding those other core areas. It also doesn't increase the area of the kitchen or the number of serving lines. Therefore, I think the BOE should reverse their decision to use four lunches as the standard for all schools.

Clearly, there is a mismatch between core capacity and classroom capacity at many of our facilities. I urge you to follow DPI guidelines and calculate cafeteria capacities using the three-lunch method. Ignoring core capacity issues to achieve a desired result in the realignment process will adversely impact the educations of students at many UCPS schools. Wouldn’t it be better to follow the guidelines for calculating core capacity and then add core capacity where needed to achieve the desired outcome for the realignment rather than unnecessarily overcrowding many schools to mask core issues at certain other schools?


Sincerely,